HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE NORWAY/UN CONFERENCE ON THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH
FOR SUSTAINABLE USE OF

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Tuesday, 7 September 1999

On the second day of the Norway/UN Conference on the
Ecosystem Approach for Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity,
participants met to hear presentations on the themes of management in
dynamic environments and the socio-economy of sustainable resource use.
Participants also heard side presentations on the Ecosystem Conservation
Group’s work on large-scale ecosystem management in the marine
environment and on key questions in legalizing the ecosystem approach.

Management in Dynamic Environments

Chair Odd Terje Sandlund, Norwegian Institute for
Nature Research, introduced Kenton Miller, World Resources Institute, who
examined the conceptualization and application of the bioregional
approach. Miller described a bioregion as a territorial unit of planning
and management defined by geographical limits of human communities and
ecological systems, which is large enough to maintain the integrity of the
region’s biological communities, habitats and ecosystems, yet small
enough for local residents to consider it home. Bioregional management
seeks to establish a political and institutional framework for cooperation
among governments, communities and other stakeholders, with a planning
process that incorporates cooperation, available information, goal
setting, and evaluation and adaptation of management approaches. Within
bioregions, Miller stressed the identification and effective management of
core protected areas, buffer zones and corridors, and highlighted the
range of ecological, economic, socio-cultural, spiritual and educational
values, products and services that bioregions provide. He underscored the
need to act now, learning and replicating lessons from existing
activities, while preparing for environmental change from pressures such
as climate change, population growth and invasive species.

During the discussion, participants noted the
contribution of other complimentary activities, such as WWF’s work on
ecoregion-based conservation and UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves. One
participant noted that synergies to address interlinked environmental
problems are developing among the Rio Conventions, yet more progress is
necessary at the national level. Another noted management problems in
scale and administrative boundaries, as species have different migrational
patterns and habitats that may not intersect with socially defined
bioregions.

Rowan Martin, consultant, spoke on adaptive
management as a tool for decentralized systems. According to Martin,
adaptive management recognizes the inevitability of management
interventions in higher order systems and is characterized by inherent
uncertainties. He added that adaptive management requires: a statement of
provisional objectives for a system; a tentative plan for management
interventions; a monitoring plan for data gathering; and, most
importantly, a feedback system that permits revision of management
activities and objectives. He compared adaptive management to the
classical blueprint approach, which assumes that it is possible to
determine a set of cause and effect relationships by turning resources,
knowledge or technology into desired and sustainable human change. He
emphasized that the latter requires considerable study in advance, whereas
adaptive management allows for the immediate inception of a project.
Although the blueprint approach still dominates mainstream methodologies,
Martin said that biodiversity conservation at the ecosystem level cannot
be achieved without adaptive management practices. Favoring a bottom-up,
cascading institutional approach, he cited setting of quotas for
international sport hunting in Zimbabwe’s communal lands as a successful
example. Martin stressed that management should be decentralized to the
lowest appropriate level and emphasized that adaptive management should be
seen as an important research method and management tool.

Mike Sinclair, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, addressed
adaptive management in Canadian fisheries, using the example of Ocean
Management Areas (OMA) around Nova Scotia. Canada’s 1997 Oceans Act
requires fisheries to be managed within the broader context of integrated
ocean management, taking into consideration multiple uses, ecosystem
features and the precautionary approach. He noted the challenges of
addressing different sectoral priorities (e.g., marine transport,
aquaculture, oil and gas, commercial fishing and tourism) and integrating
those, along with existing fisheries plans, into an overall ocean
management plan. In Sinclair’s example, three OMAs were created based on
administrative and community boundaries, while recognizing that specific
transboundary environmental issues would require decision-making at higher
levels. Sinclair discussed the need to define ecosystem objectives, such
as maintaining biodiversity and habitat productivity, along with relevant
performance measures and reference points. Regarding governance, Sinclair
stated that the different fisheries advisory councils and sector boards
were asked to identify ecosystem objectives. The information would be
provided to an overarching OMA council that could evaluate achievement of
ecosystem objectives, ensure cross-sectoral representation and perform
periodic assessments. He further stressed the need to build on present
management structures, while recognizing that contentious issues, such as
allocation and equity, might require top-down decisions from the
ministerial level.

In the following discussion, one participant noted
that pragmatic social definition of boundaries allows for local political
mobilization and empowerment. Another asked about possible governance
measures to address transboundary resource conflicts, and a final speaker
asked how the CBD could address such disputes. Sinclair stressed the need
to resolve transboundary problems before solving internal jurisdictional
issues, and another speaker stated that CBD Article 5 requires Parties to
cooperate on areas beyond national jurisdiction and on other matters of
mutual interest.

Ian Cresswell, Australian National Land and Water
Resources Audit, presented on understanding ecosystem conditions to
maintain productivity and conservation through environmental auditing. He
stated that the Australian National Land and Water Resources Audit was
established to provide a better understanding of vegetation and broader
ecosystem condition to inform management at a landscape scale. He said the
key focus of the Audit is to contextualize the status and trends in
resource conditions within current management responses and to generate
options for remedial action, development and protection. He also
emphasized that the Audit’s purpose was to build a sector-wide
information base to meet natural resource management needs in such areas
as: policy assessment and development; natural resource investment
decisions; evaluation of program and policy performance; and direct
resource management. The Audit addresses such themes as water
availability, dryland salinity, vegetation management, rangeland
monitoring, agricultural productivity and sustainability, capacity for
change and ecosystem health. Regarding the vegetation information system,
Cresswell stressed the need to translate existing data, increase the
system’s flexibility and make it more responsive to user needs. On
natural resource information management, he noted the importance of
information access, exchange and management, as well as protocols and
fundamental data sets. He emphasized that integration of information with
a broad range of natural resource data is the key to providing useful
tools for management and policy decision-making.

The Socio-economy of Sustainable Resource Use

Chair Monica Hammer, University of Stockholm,
introduced Charles Perrings, University of York, who spoke on the economy
of fluctuating resources and how economic theory can assist ecosystem
policy-making. He stated that ecosystems can be envisioned as complex
dynamic systems with properties such as path dependence, sensitivity to
initial conditions, non-linearities, and discontinuous change around
threshold values. He stressed that evaluation of environmental projects
should entail a cost-benefit approach accounting for spatial and temporal
externalities, as well as the need to improve valuation techniques. In
assessing human impacts and ecosystem sustainability, Perrings presented a
model noting two points of equilibrium for a given resource, such as fish
stock. One point represents a condition prior to collapse, and the other
reflects maximum sustainable yield. He said that the latter is more
preferable as it can withstand greater ecosystem stresses and shocks, and
that sustainability is maintaining a system’s resilience within such
bounds. Finally, he stated that scientists should get more out of existing
and unconventional data.

In the ensuing discussion, one participant suggested
that examples of economic data and traditional knowledge can provide
long-term data useful for analyzing ecosystems. Another participant asked
about the positive and negative aspects of property rights for meeting
ecosystem objectives. Perrings stated that the scale of property rights
(e.g., individual versus collective) needs to be appropriate for the
problem, while cautioning that private property can be a solution or
problem to environmental issues.

Daniel Janzen, University of Pennsylvania, spoke on
biodiversity and ecosystem development as the primary tool for the
survival of tropical wildlands. Janzen described the “gardenification”
of nature, whereby humans cultivate and utilize natural ecosystems for
products and services. He added that sustainable biodiversity development
needs to combine the traditional park conservation approach (save it),
scientific and academic approach (know it) and the commercial approach
(use it). Using the Guanacaste Conservation Area in Costa Rica as an
example, Janzen asserted that a complex system of tropical wildland
biodiversity can be managed as a multi-crop, multi-use and multi-tasked
area. He also added that such ecosystems can be managed similarly to other
socio-economic sectors through planning, investment, compensation,
reinvestment, custodianship and technical upgrading. He cited orange peel
decomposition in the conservation area as one example of an economic
service that benefits the area’s biodiversity and the people who use it.
He further stressed the need for two sets of regulations in biodiversity
conservation: one for the agricultural landscape and one for wildland
areas. Overall, he advocated a “planning by doing” strategy and
emphasized the need for a self-sustaining and decentralized wildland
management process.

Regarding a question on the significance of the
orange peel example, Janzen said that it exemplifies how one can establish
a contract outside the norms of conservation management. Another
participant asked a question on determining and maintaining the price of
wildlife commodities. Janzen responded that to get a fair price one should
negotiate as any commercial business would to sell a product.

Mary Shetto, Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives, presented on the institutional requirements for
community-based management of land resources (CBMLR) in Tanzania. She
showed a video on human pressures leading to environmental degradation and
desertification in Tanzania’s dryland ecosystems, and community-based
efforts to combat them. She noted that past conservation efforts focused
mostly on soil and water, ignoring social issues of food security and
gender discrimination. She then reviewed the history of traditional groups
and collective production from pre-colonial times to current efforts and
policies. Shetto outlined the different stakeholders (e.g., rural
households, village communities, urban dwellers/commercial sector,
government and public institutions, international community) in land-use,
along with their specific demands on and contributions to the management
of terrestrial resources according to three land-use classifications
(reserved, village and general use). However, she noted that the land-use
demands of local communities and rural households are directly linked to
their livelihoods, whereas other stakeholders can find alternatives. After
addressing the major constraints and conflicts in CBMLR, Shetto outlined
the range of village and district level institutions necessary to promote
effective management, including traditional institutions, village
councils, farmers’ groups, women’s and youth groups, primary schools,
religious groups and larger political bodies able to communicate local
concerns to the national level.

During the discussion one participant noted the
diversity of “communities” even at the same level. Regarding questions
on tenurial security, Shetto responded that tenure is a key community need
along with sources of alternative livelihoods, clear economic benefits and
fair markets.

SIDE PRESENTATIONS

Bai-Mass Taal, Ecosystem Conservation Group (ECG),
introduced a discussion paper on large-scale ecosystem management with
special reference to the marine and coastal environment. The ECG, composed
of several international institutions, including UNEP, CBD, IUCN, UNDP,
the World Bank and others, advocates coordination of the ecosystem
approach at the global level. Regarding ecosystem-based management of the
marine environment, Taal outlined five main activities in which the ECG is
involved, including integrated coastal area management, marine protected
areas, marine pollution, sustainable fisheries management and stakeholder
participation.

Laszlo Miklos, Slovakian Environment Minister,
briefly outlined a number of key questions for operationalizing the
ecosystem approach in national policy and law. Specifically, he raised the
issues of where and what kind of legal and policy tools are necessary?
What are the subjects, whether sectoral or spatial, of legal
interventions? And, how can policy-makers effectively intervene in the
landscape and interact with resource users?

Sustainable Developments is a publication of the
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) info@iisd.ca,
publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ï¿½. This issue is written
and edited by Stas Burgiel sb4997a@american.edu
and Mark Schulman markschulman@hotmail.com.
Digital Editing by David Fernau david@virtualstockholm.net.
The Managing Editor of Sustainable Developments is Langston James "Kimo"
Goree VI kimo@iisd.org. Funding for
coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Norwegian Directorate
for Nature Management.The authors can be contacted at their electronic
mail addresses and at tel: +1-212-644-0204 and by fax: +1-212-644-0206.
IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg,
Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700. The opinions expressed in
the Sustainable Developments are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from
Sustainable Developmentsmay
be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation.
Electronic versions of Sustainable Developments are sent to e-mail
distribution lists (ASCII and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages
WWW-server at http://www.iisd.ca/.
For further information on Sustainable Developments, including requests to
provide reporting services, contact the Managing Editor at kimo@iisd.org.